Skip to main content

B-138475, NOV. 19, 1959

B-138475 Nov 19, 1959
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

TO SIGBERT LOEB INDIA CORPORATION: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 22. THE FACTS IN THE CASE ARE FULLY SET OUT IN OUR DECISION OF OCTOBER 13 AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED. THE ONLY MATTER IN ISSUE IS WHETHER THE DATE OF TENDER OF THE MICA IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS THE DATE ON WHICH YOU BILLED FOR THE MICA OR THE DATE ON WHICH THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE RECEIVED THE INVOICE IN A PARTICULAR CASE. AS YOU WERE INFORMED HERETOFORE. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE HAS AGREED WITH YOUR CONTENTION THAT DELIVERY WAS CONSIDERED AS HAVING BEEN ACCOMPLISHED WHEN YOU TENDERED THE MICA FOR INSPECTION. THE INVOICE WAS PRESENTED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ON THAT DAY. THE ONLY EVIDENCE OF DELIVERY OF THE INVOICE IN EACH CASE IS THE DATE OF RECEIPT AS SHOWN BY THE TIME STAMP ON THE BACK OF EACH INVOICE.

View Decision

B-138475, NOV. 19, 1959

TO SIGBERT LOEB INDIA CORPORATION:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 22, 1959, REGARDING OUR DECISION OF OCTOBER 13, 1959, IN WHICH WE SUSTAINED THE SETTLEMENT OF MARCH 25, 1959, DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM FOR REFUND OF DEDUCTIONS TOTALING $847.53, TAKEN IN MAKING PAYMENT FOR MICA FURNISHED UNDER CONTRACT NO. GS- GOP-/D/-18157, DATED DECEMBER 2, 1957.

THE FACTS IN THE CASE ARE FULLY SET OUT IN OUR DECISION OF OCTOBER 13 AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED.

THE ONLY MATTER IN ISSUE IS WHETHER THE DATE OF TENDER OF THE MICA IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS THE DATE ON WHICH YOU BILLED FOR THE MICA OR THE DATE ON WHICH THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE RECEIVED THE INVOICE IN A PARTICULAR CASE.

AS YOU WERE INFORMED HERETOFORE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE HAS AGREED WITH YOUR CONTENTION THAT DELIVERY WAS CONSIDERED AS HAVING BEEN ACCOMPLISHED WHEN YOU TENDERED THE MICA FOR INSPECTION. THE FACT THAT YOU DATED AN INVOICE ON AUGUST 27, 1958, MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS DELIVERY ON THAT DAY UNLESS, OF COURSE, THE INVOICE WAS PRESENTED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ON THAT DAY. THE ONLY EVIDENCE OF DELIVERY OF THE INVOICE IN EACH CASE IS THE DATE OF RECEIPT AS SHOWN BY THE TIME STAMP ON THE BACK OF EACH INVOICE. THUS, ANY INVOICE WHICH SHOWED RECEIPT ON OR AFTER AUGUST 28, 1958, CANNOT BE REGARDED AS EVIDENCING DELIVERY OF MICA PRIOR THERETO. AND, UNDER THE TERMS OF AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO THE CONTRACT WHICH YOU EXECUTED THEREAFTER ON OCTOBER 8, 1958, YOU AGREED THAT THE REDUCED UNIT PRICES SET OUT THEREIN--- WHICH REFLECTED A DECREASE IN PRICE BECAUSE OF A REDUCTION IN THE IMPORT DUTY ON AUGUST 28--- WERE TO APPLY TO MICA DELIVERED ON AND AFTER AUGUST 28, 1958. IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THAT UNDER THE TERMS OF AMENDMENT NO. 5 YOU WERE ENTITLED TO PAYMENT AT THE REDUCED PRICES ONLY, FOR ANY MICA IN REGARD TO WHICH THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE RECORDS SHOW THAT DELIVERY WAS EFFECTED ON OR AFTER AUGUST 28, 1958. AND WHILE YOU IMPLY THAT YOU PLACED THE INVOICES IN THE HANDS OF THE ADMINISTRATION OFFICE PRIOR TO THE DATES AS SHOWN BY THE RECEIVING OFFICE TIME STAMPS, YOU HAVE NOT PRESENTED ANY EVIDENCE, SUCH AS AN AFFIDAVIT FROM THE PARTY DELIVERING THE INVOICES THAT THEY WERE IN FACT PRESENTED TO THE GOVERNMENT PRIOR TO AUGUST 28, 1958.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs